He holds the fate of the pension reform in his hands. The Constitutional Council will announce this Friday, April 14 “at the end of the day” whether or not it validates the decried project of the executive. In their appeals, parliamentarians from the left or far right have attacked the “legislative vehicle” chosen by the government: an amending budget for Social Security, which imposes time limits for review by Parliament and which they consider “unsuitable “to a reform of the magnitude of that of pensions. They pointed to the many tools mobilized by the government to, in their words, “muzzle” Parliament: vote blocked in the Senate, 49.3 in the Assembly to pass the text without a vote… Since 1958, the Constitutional Council has censored more 350 laws voted by majorities on the right or on the left, but very largely in a partial way. Remember that since 1971, the Elders have been monitoring the compliance of laws not only with the Constitution, but also with its preamble and the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789. Here are the options open to him concerning pension reform .
Partial censorship
On paper, full validation without any censorship is possible, but unlikely according to most constitutional scholars. Partial text censorship is the most likely scenario. Pro-reform and opponents all expect some measures to fall by the wayside. Among the proposals in danger: the senior index, which must oblige large companies to declare employees over 55, but could constitute a legislative rider. The index should however be fished out in a future bill. The experimentation of a new CDI at the end of his career is also threatened.
Partial censorship would be a lesser evil for the executive, who could argue that the heart of the reactor, the postponement of the legal age to 64, is validated. “If there is censorship of points (…) but not of 64 years, then that will not respond in any way to social conflict”, warned the boss of the CFDT Laurent Berger. Left elected officials have already announced that they will continue to demand the withdrawal of the reform.
Total censorship
The opponents of the text claim it, and invoke in particular a diversion of the spirit of the Constitution by the executive. To pass the reform, he used an amending budget from the Secu, which limited the duration of parliamentary debates.
A choice “motivated by no other reason than that of opportunity”, scolded the PS deputy Jérôme Guedj, who also mentioned “insincere” debates, in particular on the revaluation of small pensions. Elina Lemaire, professor of public law at the University of Burgundy, subscribes to certain arguments, but remains cautious about a rejection for “misappropriation” of procedure: “the Council should somehow go and scrutinize the conscience of the government, which he always refused to do”.
“It is not because the procedure is unusual that it should be censored”, considers for his part Didier Maus. The constitutionalist, however, notes potential “constitutional pitfalls” if the Elders considered, for example, that the reform worsens the situation of women or certain long careers, and that there is a “break in equality”. This could lead to a big slash in the sections of the bill.
Validate the essentials of the reform and … the RIP
The Constitutional Council will also have to judge whether the left’s request for a shared initiative referendum (RIP) is admissible or not. And in this regard, the Elders could do a double blow: not to censor the essence of the reform, and to validate the referendum procedure of shared initiative (RIP) of the left. Its initiators want to submit a bill to a national consultation so that the retirement age cannot exceed 62 years.
The required conditions seem to be met (signatures of parliamentarians, scope of the proposal, etc.), and the green light for the RIP is “probable”, considers the professor of constitutional law Laureline Fontaine. Even in the event of validation, the road remains long. The proposal would have to collect 4.8 million citizen signatures in nine months, and that it not be examined during the following six months by the National Assembly and the Senate, for it to be submitted to a referendum.
